In 2010 my fellow anti-lawyer advertising contact in the New York Personal Injury Blog published an article and picture soliciting personal injury and DUI cases by depicting a potential client standing in front of a urinal at a South Carolina restaurant. With tongue in cheek he stated that “Advertising over a urinal has one thing going for it: A captive audience.”

Surprisingly he received emails upholding the use of such ads by comparing the ad to “those of sports teams or dentists or others.” Perhaps one distinction is that attorneys are regulated by the Rules of Courts and governing bodies that other professions do not have to comply with.

The blogs author responded that such ads could be seen by potential jurors and adversely affect their ability to render a fair and impartial verdict in light of the tasteless advertisement.

Eight years later I am informed that a local popular sports bar/restaurant in the Chattanooga area had such an ad in the men’s room. (I don’t know if they have lengthened their happy hour and/or lowered their beer prices to encourage more trips to the John.)

I leave it up to the reader to decide whether Justice Blackmon in the 1978 opinion intended that releasing ones bladder into a urinal falls into the non-deceptive advertising category.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

1. I will continue the Silly Blog in spite of the vocal criticism of the few financially involved advertisers and the silence of the vast majority of non-advertising attorneys who allow their old and prospective new clients to be taken from them;

2. I will continue to expose any “deceptive” advertising techniques that are based on misrepresentations of any lawyer’s accomplishment not based on results or ability;

3. I will continue if asked to encourage the Tennessee Supreme Court, Tennessee General Assembly, and Board of Professional Responsibility to examine the current rule pertaining to lawyer advertising in an effort to attempt to make certain that any representations made to the general public are truthful, non-deceptive, and are in the best interests of the individuals needing legal services;

4. I will continue to have our firm engage in charitable events for philanthropic purposes in a proper and dignified manner and not just to benefit the firm financially;

5. I will continue to give credit to law firms that advertise in a professional and non-deceptive manner and do not demean the image of trial lawyers;

6. I will continue to urge my brothers and sisters in the legal community to forward the Silly Blog to their clients, friends, and acquaintances to inform the intended beneficiaries of legitimate legal advertising. They can claim it as their authorship without any reference to the creator of the Silly Blog.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

When I started the “TruthInLawyerAdvertising.com” blog (the silly blog) I had hoped the members of the Bar who are opposed to “deceptive” advertising would join in our Don Quixote crusade to inform the public that glitzy self-serving media ads are not the best way to select legal representation in serious matters.

Unfortunately the multi-billion dollars involved in lawyer advertising, inertia by Bar Associations, governing bodies and supervising authorities have not resulted in any large ground swell of support by the legal community for our quest.

Of course I have received many private congratulations from some of my legal acquaintances but most attorneys opposed to “deceptive advertising” have been complacent and allowed the media advertisers to steal their regular clients primarily in personal injury cases under the guise that their commercials make them more qualified to handle a serious injury or death case. In reality the cost of the expensive radio, television, website, etc. campaigns put great pressure on said law firms to settle cases without going to trial and receive less than full value of the case based on the severity of the case, liability, and collectability of any settlement or verdict.

Attorney Eric Turkewitz of New York is the Don Quixote of anti-lawyer advertising in that area entitled “New York Personal Injury Law Blog” and has won American Bar Association Journal Awards for several years. He combines his critique of lawyer advertising with some promotion of his personal injury practice while I have chosen to keep the blog separate from the firm website.

Eric’s most recent featured article involved activist preacher Al Sharpton’s daughter getting a $95,000.00 settlement in a slip and fall case. He also was the source on the prior article dealing with the selection of a female puppy, Lucy Davis, being selected for exclusive membership in the highly publicized “Lawyers of Distinction.”

Keep reading Eric’s blog and our “silly blog.” More importantly forward them to not only your clients but also your friends and acquaintances. It might even result in you retaining part of your legal practice rather than losing important cases to the self-proclaimed experts.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

In a previous article, I have listed the qualities of what I think a “Best Lawyer” should possess to represent the legal profession in an ethical manner rather than glitzy and often deceptive legal advertising. On December 12, 2018, our profession lost one of the individuals that in my opinion qualify for being one of the “Best.”

On page B2 of the December 13, 2018, edition of the Chattanooga Times Free Press and in the obituary section of the Chattanoogan.com contains a descriptive article on the life of this unique person who passed away at the age of ninety-four.

Tom was a devoted husband, father of four children and thirteen grandchildren, Veteran of World War II, Harvard University law school graduate, church member and outstanding corporate, tax and estate planning attorney at three of Chattanooga’s leading law firms. His family, personal, legal, military, religious and civic duties are too many to list in this article and the reader is directed to his afore-mentioned obituary.

As a member of the Chattanooga Jaycees he was one of the original founders in 1953 of the Orange Grove Center in an abandoned grammar school in downtown Chattanooga for the mentally and physically handicapped. For sixty-five years he fought to help build the Center into its present facility in Glenwood where the needs of clients are supported and treated. His efforts to protect the rights of those clients on both local and state levels are unsurpassed. A normally quiet individual, he could be combative and forceful in the protection of Orange Grove’s clients.

For thirty-five years I have had the privilege of working with Tom on many legal matters pertaining to the Center. His enthusiasm, ethical standards and love of Orange Grove on a pro bono basis exemplifies how he is imminently qualified to be one of the “Best of the Best” in the legal community.

His death leaves a void that is impossible to fill.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

Two of the biggest spending local lawyer advertising firms in Chattanooga take great pride in showing their concern for the less fortunate by publicly giving away a few hundred dollars on either television or in their ad with our local newspaper which has selected them as “Best of the Best” for the past four years. The other big media spender likes to publicly hand over the money to some needy person or organization on television in the amount of $500.00.

Both advertising law firms have adopted the term “Pay It Forward” it their ads.

When the two firms are not trying to encourage local injured parties (only certain personal injury cases accepted) not­ to hire the “Billboard Boys from Birmingham” they proudly offer to donate a $75.00 Food City Gift Card from November 11-20 to some lucky citizens.

While such small gestures of philanthropy are appreciated by the recipients, it does not in any way reflect on the ability (or lack thereof) to successfully receive full value in damages in an injured party’s personal injury case.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

On Friday, November 8, 2018, beginning at 1:00 p.m. a four hour panel discussion will be held at the University of Tennessee College of Law on the subject of lawyer advertising since 1978 when the topic was legalized by the United State Supreme Court in the landmark decision of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. Former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice and head of the Student Advocacy Center at UTK, Professor Penny White, will moderate the discussion on the negative and positive aspects of the publics enhanced “right to know” of the availability of lawyer services through advertising and marketing.

Jerry H. Summers of Summers Rufolo & Rodgers, P.C. will give his opinions as to the good and bad of the subject and how it has changed the practice of law since the Bates decision. Many of these views are already stated on his independent blog “truthinlawyeradvertising.com” that has been in existence for over a year.

A representative of one of the large law firms in the area will speak on the subject of how they market the firm to the public under the standards of Bates and subsequent appellate decision by courts and actions of bar associations across the country.

As of this date no one has come forward to speak on the more questionable area of lawyer advertising in the area of personal injury law as it applies to injured parties (plaintiff) as a result of car/tractor trailer accidents, defective products, medical malpractice, etc.

Dual Continuing Legal Education credit has been approved for the symposium in the event any attorneys need to comply with the yearly (CLE) requirements established in this area of the legal system.

UTK Law students have been invited to attend for what hopefully will be a lively discussion on how the topic of allowing attorneys to market their services in the media to the public has affected the image of the legal profession.

Additional information can be obtained from the UTK College of Law, 1505 Cumberland Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37996 (865) 974-4241.

After running into legal difficulties because of some of its techniques in dealing with consumers and potential attorney listings, Avvo has settled one of the controversies with the New York Attorney General’s Office by paying a fine of $50,000.00 and changing their consumer disclosures about how attorneys are rated and how Avvo posts legal forms to the website.

The agreement follows the purchase of the company by Internal Brands in April 2018 from Avvo founder Mark Britton and four other chief executives. The company’s use of a 1-10 rating system had been criticized and accused of favoring attorneys that update and build Avvo profiles.

One of the requirements of the agreement with New York State is that Avvo must inform potential consumers that attorneys who upload a resume or submit a self-serving profile must state on Avvo’s website that those lawyers receive higher rankings on the 1-10 scale than lawyers who do not. Whether the return of Avvo to the billion dollar lawyer advertising arena is for the benefit of the consumer seeking quality representation, attorneys who pay to list their alleged legal credentials or the financial benefits of Avvo is a decision that must be made by each.

While it is legal to consider Avvo and other legal advertising services and the selected favorable client reviews it is respectfully suggested that potential clients for legal services solicit the opinions of other individuals in the community as to the qualifications of non-Avvo subscribing attorneys and then make their decision as to who they want to represent them.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

After a respite of about 3 months for a hip replacement, hand injury and a non-invasive procedure for the problem that all males over the age of 50 incur during their lifetime, I am now ready to return to the rigors of a trial practice and to reinstate the “truthinlawyeradvertising.com” blog. Said blog has received praise from many of the traditional non-media advertising lawyers and criticism from the radio, television, and website advertisers who often overstate their ability, often engage in deceptive practices and do not achieve full value settlements or jury verdicts for their clients because of their extensive advertising budgets.

When I started the blog I was well aware of the risks involved in the changing legal environment since the U.S. Supreme Court made its ill-fated decision in 1978 in Bates by a 5-4 vote to allow lawyer advertising under the guise of the “public’s right to know” to find a lawyer.

The purpose of the blog was and will continue to be the dissemination of truthful and non-deceptive information about the subject of lawyer advertising that will allow any potential client to make an informed decision as to who they should select to represent them or a loved one in the field of personal injury, bankruptcy, social security or criminal law which seem to be the areas involving the most coverage in lawyer advertising.

After some unsuccessful attempts to control the use of deceptive advertising several state regulatory bodies have abandoned most efforts to control often false and misleading representations as to quality of attorneys legal services, fairness of verdicts or settlements, and other factors that enter in to whether a client received a fair and just result in their case.

On a personal note, criticism of the blog by a few of the largest radio and television advertisers has resulted in the blog being banned from dissemination to the membership of one of the lawyer associations in the State of Tennessee

I still support the group now and will do so in the future but will not abandon my beliefs that the advent of lawyer advertising since 1978 benefits only insurance companies, insurance defense lawyers, advertising agencies in several areas, and some lawyers who misrepresent their credentials and accomplishments and do not have the best interests of the clients that we have taken an oath to represent.

The blog is back! If you believe it is truthful, beneficial and helpful in your law practice send it to as many individuals or organizations possible. I grant you permission to claim credit for its contents in any way!

Here is the next blog entry on the resurrection of Avvo in New York State!

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

On November 27, 1858 the Fourteenth President of the United States listed the following ad in a local newspaper in Illinois as a practicing attorney prior to his successful nationwide president campaign:

Lincoln and Herndon

Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Will practice in the Court of Law

And Chancery in this State

--Springfield, Illinois

Fortunately, for our country, he was not disciplined or disbarred for his entry into the field of lawyer advertising.

In an article in the July edition of the American Bar Association Journal, ABA Ethics Counsel Dennis Rendelman discussed a proposal by the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility on “Lawyer Advertising” to be presented to the ABA House of Delegates for approval in Chicago at the ABA 2018 Annual Meeting.

He does a short historical review of the changing of the legal community’s attitude in the 1850’s towards lawyer advertising being completely prohibited through the present day almost non-existence efforts to control “deceptive” advertising since the adopting of the Bates decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1978.

A group formed in 1990, the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) with an announced membership of 450 has submitted reports over the past four (4) years that has resulted in the proposed amendments to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1-7.5 that will be discussed in Chicago.

Each reader of this Blog should acquire a copy of the present Model Rules and the proposal amendments and come to their own opinion and voice the same to the ABA.

Do these proposal amendments adhere to the language of Justice Blackmun in Bates that “the judicial and legal community would regulate lawyer advertising to avoid deception in simple legal matters?” Or does it further open the already saturated flood gates of the lawyer advertising field that allows almost any type of representations as to the qualifications of the soliciting attorney(s).

Abraham Lincoln may have taken a bold step in his firm’s simple announcement but getting elected President in 1860 may have eliminated any bar association efforts to discipline him for his innocuous advertisement.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

It’s that time of the year again when our local daily newspaper loads up its financial bank account with its community appeal to have the public vote for the “Best of the Best” in over 50 categories during the month of June. This marketing tool evidently has some effect because the competition has increased substantially this year.

The multi-page “hearing aid” race to be the “best” produces significant income to our Arkansas based newspaper firm and who are they to object to “hearing aid” and “law firms” making website solicitations but now who are brazenly putting daily ads in the publication that promises to “give the news impartially without fear or favor(?)!”

I am accustomed to the blown up and exaggerated claims of Chattanooga’s self-appointed “Big Time Lawyers Big Time Damages” boys but I have to admit that I am a little bit disappointed in my friend and capable divorce lawyer, Jennifer Lawrence, being lured into this price war to maintain her rightfully earned title of the “best” in divorce law for nine years in spite of any protestations by Glenna Ramer, David Noblit, Sandra Bott, Bill Horton, John Konvalinka and several others that are local attorneys and not from St. Louis.

One enterprising and ambitious solicitor for votes has enticed the public with three drawings for 2 tickets to Dollywood (do I get to see Dolly?) on June 25, a $150.00 gift card on July 2 and a 50 inch LED 4K HDTV on July 9, none of which has anything to do with their business or profession.

I am surprised that the best list of categories for attorneys has not expanded because it is a fertile field of potential revenue for the cash strapped tribunal. Best Speeding Ticket Lawyer, Best Bad Check Lawyer, Best Light Law Lawyer, Best Jaywalking Defender, Best Bike Lane Violator Lawyer, Best Public Cussing Lawyer, etc. The list is endless and just think of the prestige that will come with it. Perhaps our local member of the Fourth Estate will come up with an appropriate plaque for $1,000.00 or website badge to show additional recognition and to pick up some more revenue.

I have to go now to click my votes for “pediatric dentist” (I have no children), “real estate broker” (at 77 I don’t need a multi-million dollar house), and any other of the over 50 appealing categories. P.T. Barnum had it right in his famous statement about the public!

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

In the April 24 edition of the electronic version of the ABA Journal, the revelation was made that the original creator of the above online service to connect consumers and attorneys had sold his interest in the company and was looking for new horizons to conquer.

The fact that Avvo has been banned in some states by bar associations and courts, been a defendant in several lawsuits and a class action case did not deter the founder of Avvo from boasting that his company had helped many millions of consumers and hundreds of thousands of lawyers while he was heading Avvo.

Since 2007 Avvo Legal Services has referred prospective clients to attorneys for a flat fee and additional payment of advertising costs. Some state bar associations have asserted violation of statutes or court rulings pertaining to fee sharing with non-lawyers and the unlicensed practice of law.

He basically criticizes the organized bar as being engaged in “protectionism” and reluctance to change. He never discusses any aspect of the publics declining image of the legal profession and suggests that Avvo and other legal service providers will be responsible for further positive change in the profession.

No mention is made of whether the legal profession has evolved into a legal business that has advanced the publics “right to know” as described in the 1978 directive from the United States Supreme Court.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

Recently I received two new opportunities to be included in “America’s Top 100 Lawyers” in both civil and criminal law. Unfortunately, hidden in the Selection Methodology of the application of both is that the prestige and prominence that I will receive is limited to fifty lawyers in each state rather than one hundred attorneys in the United States.

Thus I can be only 1 of 5,000 world class litigators if I buy the membership, plaque, etc. or take advantage of the numerous opportunities to flaunt my talents (at a price).

A new tactic is being used to stimulate membership (sucker list) by giving a couple of free listings in the state to members of the Bar who are actually qualified, competent, and widely respected attorneys in our profession who don’t need to advertise in this fashion to obtain business.

I contacted two of my colleagues and made inquiry as to their selection for membership. Both replied that they got a call with an offer of free membership if they would allow their names and background information to be used by the most recent of our 1,200 “Best or Top Attorneys” lists.

Perhaps my colleagues will reap big bucks by letting their respected names be used to corral other nominees to another deceptive advertising scheme that inures to the profit of the selection agency but not to the clients or reputation of the legal profession.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

Whenever there is actual or proposed litigation involving a drug or product, a nationwide campaign by certain out-of-state law firms start a proliferation of ads on cable television soliciting the cases with the usual promises of easy money.

Most of these ads are designed to acquire as many cases as possible in order to place them in an actual or proposed class action where a race is always on in order for some firms to be on the plaintiffs committee where members receive the biggest share of any attorney’s fees.

Ads for Xarelto, Pradaxa, mesh screen, 1BC Filters, opioids, birth control devices, etc. are some of the current attempts to solicit as many potential lawsuits as possible throughout the United States.

The small print that moves quickly across the television screen at the bottom usually solicits the cases for law firms in Texas, California, Mississippi, etc. To date no Tennessee law firms have openly engaged in this form of cable television advertising that are shown in the Chattanooga market.

Some put a required disclaimer at the bottom that they do not suggest that they provide better legal services than other law firms “but some offer promises of how easy it is to receive compensation without going to court” is another example of advertising that goes beyond the original intent of the United States Supreme Court decision in 1978.

Having a local attorney you can reach and personally talk to when you have a potential case is a better alternative than calling an 800 number and get a sophisticated call answering service.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!